When policy advisors cannot reach a consensus
Otto Swank (),
Wilko Letterie () and
Hendrik van Dalen ()
Social Choice and Welfare, 2000, vol. 17, issue 3, 439-461
In this paper advisors are selected by two ministers with conflicting interests in order to (1) acquire information, and (2) obtain political legitimacy concerning a project. In the end, parliament decides whether or not the project, of which the consequences are uncertain, is implemented. In principle a minister wants to appoint an advisor whose preferences are similar. However, since the advisor needs to convince the decisive player in the model, the minister may appoint an advisor whose preferences are closer to those of the agents to be persuaded. We also show when polarised advice occurs (the advisors have different preferences) and when consensual advice occurs (they have the same preferences).
Note: Received: 29 June 1998/Accepted: 26 May 1999
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:17:y:2000:i:3:p:439-461
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... c+theory/journal/355
Access Statistics for this article
Social Choice and Welfare is currently edited by Bhaskar Dutta, Marc Fleurbaey, Elizabeth Maggie Penn and Clemens Puppe
More articles in Social Choice and Welfare from Springer, The Society for Social Choice and Welfare Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla ().